Originally posted by Nashwan
Of course they aren't acceptable.
Well, you and Beetle seem to continually suggest that bans/confiscations are the solution when objects are used in homicide. So, where's the concern over knives, which are a much larger problem than firearms in the UK?
Some? Everybody does. Tell you what, I won't use a gun for the next year if you agree not to use a knife for the next year. Deal?
Nah, I'm going to use both. I enjoy both and there's no reason not to use both. Inanimate objects never caused any homicide all by themselves.
Man invented the knife long before he became modern man.
Could man have invented firearms before he became modern man? You're putting this kind of stuff up as "evidence"?
No, it's necessity. Knives are necessary, guns are not, for the vast majority of people.
No, not a necessity. As laz pointed out, prisoners and airline travelers get along quite well without them. It could be done. More to the point, guns are not a necessity TO YOU so you feel free to propose bans. But banning something YOU feel is important is unacceptable because it falls into the necessity category. At least that's how I see your argument.
What's your position on liquor? 17,000+ alcohol related motor vehicle deaths in the US...... do we "need" liquor? Shouldn't we go ahead and "save" those lives? One man's necessity is another's convenience and vice versa.
Tell you what...... you give up guns and use knives for a year and feel good about yourself. I'll use both and feel good about myself. Oh.. I bet that's "not acceptable".
but tell me how many murders you think is an acceptable price for your right to own a gun?
How many is acceptable for your use of a knife?
I don't worry about getting struck by lightning when I go out. I don't worry about getting hit by a drunk driver, nor do I worry about me or mine getting murdered. I realize these things happen, but I surely don't worry about them.
America IS a different society than Britain. Both are different from Canada. The one conclusion you CAN draw from all three societies is that it isn't the inanimate objects.
Britain didn't have a statistically significant gun homicide rate anyway... It's the same with banning swimming in the Sahara, or banning driving on the moon.
Then why bother with a ban? That's wasting resources isn't it? You didn't get any result.... except a "feelgood" move for politicians. Seems kinda stupid, doesn't it?
Along with the entire crime rate. The US has increased the number of police, brought in tougher sentencing, and increased the likelihood of criminals getting caught. That has reduced the number of people committing crimes, for obvious reasons.
Britain has gone the opposite route, reducing effective police numbers, letting more criminals walk free on technicalities, hamstringing the police with "racial awarness" etc.
You left out the "ban" in E/W/S. That was an expensive, resource gobbling approach.
Now, looking honestly at the statistics, which approach has been more effective? The US or the UK?
What happens if both have guns? Chances are, the criminal will have less scruple about using it, will go in to the encounter better prepared (after he knows he's going to attack you. you don't set out to attack him).
So the solution is to remove any chance of the victim being able to defend himself at all?
US policemen aren't protected by their guns, having a murder rate many times that of British policemen.
And what are those rates? Do they correlate with the overall rates per 100,000? Or are you just comparing "gross score" again?
English law defines a firearms crime as any one where the offender claims to have a firearm. Famously, one "armed robber" used a banana in his jacket pocket. Not much chance of him panicking and firing the banana, was there?
We're comparing firearm
homicide rates. How many people were killed with a banana posing as a gun in E/W/S?
What Pongo's thread shows is that the people responsible for that policy and it's implementation are very stupid indeed. It has nothing to say about the merits or otherwise of the policy.
Possibly. It may simply show that it is an unworkable idea in the Canadian (and by extension) US situation where firearms are far more numerous and far more a part of everyday life than they are/were in E/W/S.
Firearm homicide rate is lower?
Number of firearms homicides in England and Wales in 2000 was 62, out of a population of just over 50,000,000.
In Canada the number was 171, out of a population of just over 30,000,000. That's about 4 - 5 times the UK rate.
Well, shall we compare apples to apples..... rate to rate as it were, instead of gross totals?
Last stats by your Home Office in Beetle's old link show 1999 England/Wales at 1.45 and Canada at 1.85 with Scotland at 2.10. Tell me, why do they separate Scotland from the E/W rates?
Certainly doesn't look like much difference to me... certainly not "4-5 time the UK rate". Not skewing the stats are ya? What's the E/W/
+SCOTLAND rate? I'm sure you have better access to the population stats to figure that one. Same laws essentially, aren't they?
Agreed. A saint with a gun is safe, a thug without a gun is not safe. But a thug with a gun is more dangerous than a thug without a gun. Surely you can agree with that?
Sure we can agree. Now let's see your solution to keeping the guns out of the hands of the thugs? Because the bans haven't. Is there anyone here that would disagree that the criminals in any country can still get a firearm despite the new laws? Surely you can agree with that?
The ban solution primarily removes guns from the hands of the citizens that are not the threat. Surely you can agree with that?
No, it's far higher than the UK's.
Homicide offences, number and rate, provinces and territories rate per 100,000 population
Canada
1997/1.95
1998/1.84
1999/1.76
2000/1.77
2001/1.78
Ok, let's see the rates for those years for ENGLAND + WALES
+ SCOTLAND.
A bit more apples to apples?
BTW, if you can, can you supply a link to E/W/S homicide rates by year and by weapon-type? The sort our FBI and CDC provide? I can't seem to locate it on your Home Office site. Thx.
